Brown v. Cole’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1989
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Fitz-Gerald v. Hull · Lewis v. Davis · Luling Oil & Gas Co. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. · Holcomb v. Lorino
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Brown ] forcefully argues that under no circumstances had there been a sale by him to plaintiffs of anything; that they were all purchasers or joint venturers in the acquisition of these so-called securities; and therefore within the implied exemption of the cases above cited; in Lewis v. Davis, 145 Tex. 468 , 199 S.W.2d 146, 149 [ (1947) ], (a suit to establish a partnership and accounting), the court hold- ing in part that: “Neither petitioner nor respondent was required to register under the Securities Act as a condition precedent to acquiring oil and gas leases or other mineral interests”; and further, that if in Lewis’ appeal, the aggrieved partner could not be denied the right to recover his interest in the partnership by failure of some of the partners to comply with the Act, then the converse is equally valid that in this case “dissatisfied joint venturers (Cole and Gould) may not recover of another joint venturer (Brown) because of the lack of registration of the persons or securities as required by the Securities Act.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Manley v. State“A further implied exemption has resulted from appellate constructions of the Act to the effect that it does not undertake to regulate purchasers or to protect sellers against purchasers of securities. Fowler v. Hults, 138 Tex. 636 , 161 S.W.2d 478 ; Winslow v. Boyd, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W.2d 384 [ (1946) ]; Fitz-Gerald v. Hull, 150 Tex. 39 , 237 S.W.2d 256 [(1951)]; ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Manley v. State““The sale of an interest in any partnership, pool, or other company, not a corporation, the total membership of which does not and will not after such sale exceed ten (10) and the organization expenses of which do not or will not exceed two (2%) per cent of the total invested capital of such company.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. Cole
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.